Einstein's theory of gravity may have to be rewritten, after researchers at the University of St Andrews found a gigantic ring of galaxies darting away from us much faster than predicted. This 10 million light year-wide ring made up of small galaxies is expanding rapidly like a mini Big Bang. The team believe our neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, once flew past our own galaxy at close range, creating a sling-shot of several small galaxies.

"If Einstein's gravity were correct, our galaxy would never come close enough to Andromeda to scatter anything that fast," said Hongsheng Zhao, Reader in the School of Physics and Astronomy and co-author of the paper, If true, the discovery would force a new understanding of gravity and about our cosmos, as such a galactic flyby only makes sense if gravity weakens more slowly as galaxies drift apart than mainstream thinking suggests.

"The ring-like distribution is very peculiar," said Indranil Banik, who led the study. "These small galaxies are like a string of raindrops flung out from a spinning umbrella. I found there is barely a 1 in 640 chance for randomly distributed galaxies to line up in the observed way. I traced their origin to a dynamical event when the Universe was only half its present age."

This tsunami-like wake in the sky was likely stirred up by a near-miss of the speeding Andromeda galaxy with our own galaxy, the Milky Way. The two massive galaxies always orbited each other in a plane and would have scattered dwarf galaxies in their paths, perhaps explaining why the speeding dwarfs are in a plane also containing the Milky Way and Andromeda.

"In Einstein's gravity paradigm, hypothetical dark matter is always invoked," said Banik. "Such a high speed requires 60 times the mass we see in the stars of the Milky Way and Andromeda. However, the friction between their huge halos of dark matter would result in them merging rather than flying 2.5 million light years apart, as they must have done."

"Science progresses through challenges," said Marcel Pawlowski, a Hubble Fellow at the University of California, Irvine, who prompted Mr Banik's discovery. "Together with two other known planes of closer-in satellites, this gigantic ring forms a serious challenge to the standard paradigm."

Anisotropic Distribution of High Velocity Galaxies in the Local Group: arxiv.org/abs/1701.06559 Journal reference: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Comments

It annoys me when learned people speak of "The Universe". It is a
symptom of our inflated hubris to think that we, at this primitive
stage in our evolution, can state that what we perceive around us
is "The Universe".

With nothing more than the principle of Occam's Razor to support
my claim, it is my opinion that the universe is infinite. And that given
our present primitive state we have a limited ability to differentiate
between what is real and what is perceived. The Big Bang is just a
convenient interpretation of so-called "facts" that matches our
flawed perception of what is real.

When scientists currently refer to the “big bang”, and the beginning
of the existence of “everything” they should explain that they are
talking about just the limited universe that we see around us.

It is most likely that the TOTAL universe has always existed and will
continue to exist for an infinity of time. And that there are an
unending number of “universes”, all in their turn experiencing their
own "big bang" moment.

Our solar system, our Milky Way, our galaxy, our “universe” all exist
in an infinite soup of “universes”, just a mote, in time without end.

We are but a primitive species, trying our simple best to understand
the little bubble that surrounds us. So, let’s stop talking about “the
universe” and substitute “our local universe".

Charles,
It's widely accepted that when physicists use the phrase "Universe" they mean "Observable Universe" so in a way what you want them to admit is already happening. This doesn't always filter out to the wider public immediately but the existence of some kind of multiverse is gradually becoming the mainstream.

I don't agree with your use of Occam' Razor (the theory with the lowest number of assumptions wins) to infer an infinite universe. My view is an infinite universe leads to an infinite number of assumptions such as the assumption that there are planets somewhere made out of cheese and creatures made out of strawberry jelly. Infinity has the effect of making all possibilities certain which invariably leads to many strange outcomes (an infinite number in fact).

I prefer the idea of a "practically" infinite universe. One that is finite but growing so fast that to appear infinite in a practical sense. This achieves the same outcome but limits the oddities that come from a truly infinite reality.

and if they didn't have thir halo of 'Drk Mtter' ???????
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/10/galaxy-rotation-negates-existence-of-dark-matter-if-theres-a-single-observation-that-we-might-have-s.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech.%29